New Delhi, Feb. 11 -- The notice moved by a section of the Opposition seeking the removal of Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla is not merely a procedural move; it is a mirror held up to the state of India's parliamentary democracy. On the surface, it appears destined to fail, as every such attempt has in the past, but its significance lies less in arithmetic and more in principle. Speakers in Westminster-style democracies are expected to embody institutional neutrality, standing above party loyalties even when they emerge from partisan politics. In India, that expectation has often collided with political reality. The current controversy reflects a deeper unease - a sense among opposition parties that the Speaker's chair has drifted from being an impartial arbiter to becoming an extension of the ruling establishment. Whether this perception is fair or exaggerated, it speaks to a larger crisis of trust within Parliament, where rules, conventions, and mutual respect appear increasingly fragile. A democracy does not weaken only when laws are broken; it erodes when institutions lose credibility in the eyes of those who must operate within them.
Constitutionally, the process to remove a Speaker is deliberately stringent. Article 94C requires a simple majority of the effective strength of the House, not merely those present and voting. This design is meant to prevent impulsive or politically motivated ousters while still keeping the office accountable. The procedural steps - submission of notice to the Secretary General, scrutiny for specific charges, a 14-day cooling-off period, and a formal vote after permission is granted by the House - reflect a balance between stability and accountability. Yet, in practice, this mechanism has never succeeded because governments have almost always commanded comfortable majorities. This makes such motions largely symbolic, but symbolism matters in parliamentary politics. It forces a public conversation about conduct, fairness, and the boundaries of power. Even a failed motion can serve as a democratic rebuke, reminding the Speaker that neutrality is not merely a constitutional requirement but a moral one.
The charges against Birla - that he has acted in a "blatantly partisan" manner, curtailed the Opposition's right to speak, and tolerated personal attacks from treasury benches - raise uncomfortable questions about how Parliament is being run. The Opposition's complaint that the Leader of Opposition is "almost invariably not allowed to speak" strikes at the heart of representative democracy, where debate is not a privilege but a duty. Equally troubling are the allegations of selective discipline, where opposition MPs face suspension while ruling-party members are spared for comparable or worse breaches of decorum. Whether one agrees with every specific grievance or not, the pattern described suggests a tilt in how rules are applied. A Speaker who is perceived as biased does not merely weaken the Opposition; he diminishes the House itself. The Lok Sabha is not meant to be a stage for power but a forum for contention, deliberation, and accountability.
Beyond the immediate political clash lies a deeper institutional problem: the gradual normalisation of majoritarian dominance over parliamentary procedure. Over the past decade, disruptions, suspensions, and truncated debates have become routine rather than exceptional. The Speaker's role should have been to mediate this fractious environment, not amplify it. When the presiding officer appears aligned with the government, the Opposition naturally gravitates toward confrontation rather than cooperation. This creates a vicious cycle - mistrust breeds obstruction, obstruction invites punitive action, and punitive action deepens mistrust. The tragedy is that Parliament becomes less about policy and more about performative brinkmanship. India's legislative history, from Nehru to Vajpayee, shows that even sharply divided Houses could function when the Speaker commanded respect across party lines. That tradition seems under strain today.
Ultimately, this episode should prompt reflection not just on Om Birla but on the health of Indian parliamentary democracy itself. The removal motion may fail, but the questions it raises will not disappear. Can a Speaker truly be neutral in an era of hyper-polarised politics? How can opposition rights be protected without paralysing governance? And how can Parliament restore its stature as a site of serious deliberation rather than political theatre? The answer lies not in procedural tweaks alone but in a renewed commitment to constitutional spirit. The Speaker must be seen as the House's guardian, not the government's gatekeeper. The ruling party must recognise that dissent is not disloyalty, and the Opposition must engage with responsibility rather than reflexive disruption. Democracy is sustained not only by elections but by everyday institutional conduct. If Parliament is to remain the soul of India's republic, its custodians - starting with the Speaker - must rise above partisanship and restore faith in the House.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.